OT: Cable TV Channel bundling

[Scarlet16E]

The cable/satelite companies buy the channels from somebody. Most of those somebodies are already bundling their channels at that point.
Disney will not sell the Disney Channel without ABC and ESPN, etc.
So all of this is moot.

I don't see how Verizon has a leg to stand on (in the current case) when their agreement with Disney is written to require bundling.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Not sure that it is moot. Apple is supposedly getting ready to enter the game. Its new HBO Now and lowered Apple TV pricing were the first moves in a reported live TV streaming play.

It'll probably just be more competition in the "light bundle" department, but having a player like Apple involved will at least put more pressure on the content providers to be more flexible. If Apple says it wants "a and b, but not x, y and z" to stream on its millions upon millions of Apple TVs, iPhones and iPads, Disney and so forth just might be inclined to listen.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Your theory is that unbundling would drive programming prices down. I'm just not sure why you think that. The cable operators (and satellite providers) would still have to buy programming to meet their customers' needs, after all.

i specifically explained why in my post.

did you not read it, or did you just not comprehend it?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Why should it be required?

I don't think channels like Science and Smithsonian can survive being unbundled at current prices - nor do I think they will make sense at unbundled prices.

if a channel doesn't have the following to survive on it's own merits at a price point it can survive on, then it won't survive.

but those who care to not take it, should not be required to subsidize it for the benefit of those who do.

that said, the programming on the channels you mention is not that expensive to produce, nor the audience as minuscule as you imply.

i wouldn't just presume they can't survive on their own. .

 

[RUScrew85]

if a channel doesn't have the following to survive on it's own merits at a price point it can survive on, then it won't survive.

but those who care to not take it, should not be required to subsidize it for the benefit of those who do.

that said, the programming on the channels you mention is not that expensive to produce, nor the audience as minuscule as you imply.

i wouldn't just presume they can't survive on their own. .

I wouldn't fight to keep bundling. They should have to survive on their own if that's what the market demands. I just don't think I'll pay $15 a month for either. I also think you'll see many of the niche channels go away because they are too expensive on their own.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

My family each watches different "bundles" from the Fios unbundling option. Sports & Sports Plus for me, the entertainment bundle for my wife, kids bundle for my kids. You get 2 of them for $75/month & each additional is $10, not to mention box & dvr rental. I'd be paying more each month without even getting the news channels, history, discover, etc.

Did colleges stop teaching economics 101 5-10 years ago? Unbundling is not a realistic option for those who don't live alone or are not price conscious. This isn't a huge profitable market for the content providers to pursue. Since they are for-profit companies, there is no need for them to provide this at a price which makes it an attractive option to the rest of their consumers. They can just wait for the 20-somethings to get jobs, spouses, families, and more time at home to become profitable consumers.

LMAO,

you think you're getting some great deal getting 4 mini bundles for $95 bucks a month? (probably plus equipment).

when cable first hit the major cities in the early 80s, it was about 6.95 mo for 36 - 41 channels for every tv in the house, and the cable companies and the programmers were doing great even at those prices.

and the cable company didn't rig it so you couldn't use your own recording device on any tv, at no extra charge.

perhaps you're the one needing a brush up on econ 101.

that said, for someone who wants every channel available, unbundling "might" or "might not" cost them more, since currently their desire for every channel is being subsidized by those who don't desire every channel, and don't wish to subsidize those who do.

then again, even unbundled, you might still get everything you want for less than you're now paying.

like i said above, the current model renders the desired programmers totally immune from the market forces of price vs demand.

if you think that's a model for holding down price, i can only wonder how you ever came to that conclusion.

 

[BeKnighted]

i specifically explained why in my post.

did you not read it, or did you just not comprehend it?

If by "specifically explained why in my post" you mean "asserted that somehow programmers would lose their bargaining power without saying why," then I guess you did. Otherwise, no. I want to know why you think programmers would end up taking less money in aggregate than they get today. That's the only way prices go down.

 

[RUJohnny99]

LMAO,

you think you're getting some great deal getting 4 mini bundles for $95 bucks a month? (probably plus equipment).

I think you need to reread my post

 

[RUfinal4]

I can do without EWTN, Turner Classic Movies, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, BBC World News, BBC America, Univision, OWN, Nick Jr, Oxygen, Telecare, CSPAN, Boomerang, Aspire, WE TV, Reelz, Euro News, TV One, ION, PBS, Mundo Fox, Jewelry TV, HSN, UniMAS, QVC, NYC Life, WLIW, WLNY, Optimum Channel, News 12 NJ, Estrella TV, Telemundo, and a bunch of others.

I don't speak spanish and don't buy crap on TV so don't need spanish stations or shopping stations.

 

[Leonard23]

I can do without EWTN, Turner Classic Movies, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, BBC World News, BBC America, Univision, OWN, Nick Jr, Oxygen, Telecare, CSPAN, Boomerang, Aspire, WE TV, Reelz, Euro News, TV One, ION, PBS, Mundo Fox, Jewelry TV, HSN, UniMAS, QVC, NYC Life, WLIW, WLNY, Optimum Channel, News 12 NJ, Estrella TV, Telemundo, and a bunch of others.

I don't speak spanish and don't buy crap on TV so don't need spanish stations or shopping stations.

Are you married, living with your partner or single? Do you have kids? What channels do you want?

 

[RUJohnny99]

I can do without EWTN, Turner Classic Movies, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, BBC World News, BBC America, Univision, OWN, Nick Jr, Oxygen, Telecare, CSPAN, Boomerang, Aspire, WE TV, Reelz, Euro News, TV One, ION, PBS, Mundo Fox, Jewelry TV, HSN, UniMAS, QVC, NYC Life, WLIW, WLNY, Optimum Channel, News 12 NJ, Estrella TV, Telemundo, and a bunch of others.

I don't speak spanish and don't buy crap on TV so don't need spanish stations or shopping stations.

Most of those channels cost little or nothing for the cablecos to carry, and the shopping channels are profit centers which reduce the carriage fees on the other channels. You can set up your remote to ignore those channels.

The bundling of Disney channels with ABC/ESPN and the Nick channels with the Viacom stations (Comedy Central, MTV/VH1, Spike) is an issue with the content providers, not the cablecos. While carriage fees are ridiculous, I agree with the content providers that cablecos shouldn't be able to just pick & choose the profitable channels & leave the others to rot. It fosters creativity and gives us options like ESPNU & Palladia which would never be able to grow on their own.